University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2016 More Than Zero: Variation in the Tattooed Population Zachary Reiter University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the Other Sociology Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Reiter, Zachary, "More Than Zero: Variation in the Tattooed Population" (2016). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 10710. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/10710 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MORE THAN ZERO: VARIATION IN THE TATTOOED POPULATION By ZACHARY MORRIS REITER B.A. Sociology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 2010 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology, Criminology The University of Montana Missoula, MT May 2016 Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Celia Winkler, Chair Sociology Daniel Doyle Sociology Frank Rosenzweig Division of Biological Sciences i Reiter, Zachary, M.A., Spring 2016 Sociology More Than Zero: Variation in the Tattooed Population Chairperson: Celia Winkler Sociological research on treat all individuals with more than zero tattoos as being part of the tattooed population. This type of categorization fails to capture the significant differences between tattooed individuals. For example, a gang member with a criminal insignia tattooed on his or her neck would be part of the same research population as long term tattoo artists with their entire body covered in tattoos or even a middle aged man with a single tattoo on his bicep. By interviewing tattoo artists, this thesis details the unique nature of tattooing as an occupation, the changing nature of the modern tattooing world, and how tattoo artists describe the variation within their clientele. The most significant variation described by interviewees was how the clients interacted with the tattoo artists and how that interaction affected their tattooing process. Two main types of clients emerged: core clients and casual clients. Core clients interact with the tattooing process in a more involved and long-term way, whereas casual clients are less involved and more likely to consume tattoos as a commodity rather than involve the tattooing process as an ongoing part of their life. Due to the increasing acceptance of tattooing by the mainstream and the increasing professionalization of tattoo shops, both core clients and casual clients are likely to receive high quality tattoos and a positive experience with tattoo artists though casual clients are at a slightly higher risk to receive the opposite. This difference in interaction with the tattooing process highlights one significant difference between individuals with more than zero tattoos. Such variation should be considered when conducting research on tattooed individuals. ii Introduction Since first getting tattooed several years ago, I've experienced several situations where my tattoos land me in awkward situations. During my first week on the job as a short order cook at a local restaurant, a co-worker said to me, “What are you in for?” “What do you mean?” I asked him “Look at yourself,” he said, pointing to my tattoos, “You're in here for something. Everyone in a kitchen is in trouble, just got out of trouble, or is about to get into trouble.” He happened to be incorrect in my case, but I could hardly fault his logic. Every other individual that worked in the kitchen had at least two tattoos, and each one of the had been charged with at least one felony at some point in their life. I was the exception in this case, not the rule. Later that same day, while still at work, another co-worker and I were taking a break outside. Soon-to-be customers stared at us as they walked towards the entrance of the restaurant. I made a quip, off-hand, about how oddly stereotypical the whole moment felt to me--two sweaty cooks standing by the backdoor to a restaurant, choking down cigarettes between orders and getting looked at sideways by customers. I thought it was hilarious. He felt judged. “Yeah, I got ink,” he said, “who cares? It's not your business or your problem.” I didn't feel like we had been getting dirty looks because of our tattoos. I told him so. He told me that he often felt judged by others in his day to day life because of his tattoos. “Other people, they just don't understand, you know?” he said. I wasn't entirely sure what he meant. I'd never had a problem with people giving me funny looks, negative or otherwise, for any reason. I always figured if someone saw that I have tattoos and assumed that I was some ex-criminal that could only get a job working in a kitchen 1 because I have little education and few job skills, then that's their mistake. No big deal to me. Those assumptions would apply entirely to my co-worker. On the other hand, being actively discriminated against for having tattoos has happened to me before and upset me in a way that tacit looks of disapproval have not (ex: not getting hired at a job that I was over qualified for because I had visible tattoos). Both my co-worker and I had tattoos and worked in a kitchen, but aside from that, we were very different people. Someone would be very wrong to lump us into the same population based only on our tattoos. After this brief discussion with my co-worker, I was reminded of another tattoo-related experience I had several weeks earlier. I was out shopping for groceries when I heard a voice behind me say something like, “Hey, I like your tattoos.” I turned around to see a woman staring intently at my left arm. “How long have you been working on those?” “Uh...a couple of years,” I said to her. “I just got my first one, like, two years ago,” she said pulling up her sleeve to reveal a small black and gray butterfly, “and I just can't stop now. I'm addicted to ink.” She pulled up one of her pant legs a few inches to show me a few more small tattoos. I nodded a few times and mumbled something, hoping that she wouldn't start rolling up more clothing in the middle of the bread aisle. One of her children pulled her away and she gave me a little wave and walked off. I thought her handful of tattoos looked like they'd been traced out of pictures in a tattoo magazine and applied in someone's basement. I could have been mistaken, and I hoped no one would ever make that error about me after seeing my tattoos. Almost a year ago, months or years after the events described above took place, I began a 2 research project that focused on body modifications for a qualitative methods class. These two previously mentioned events, and a handful of others that I can't remember well enough to accurately describe, kept popping up in my head while I was working on my project for class. The main question in the project concerned the differences in social acceptance between commonly accepted body modifications (ear piercings for females, hair dyeing, makeup, haircuts, etc) and more stigmatized ones (body piercings, tattoos, scarification, etc). While delving briefly into some academic literature on body modification, mostly about tattooing, I began to get concerned about how most everything I read considered anyone with more than zero tattoos to be a 'tattooed person.' Regardless of the methodology or the goal of the studies, all individuals with more than zero tattoos were treated as being basically the same, and the conclusions of the study's usually attempted to generalize to the target population of 'tattooed people.' Some studies had different categories to which they assigned tattooed people, but these generally were delineated by the number of tattoos a person had. Even the small amount of qualitative research I read, which mainly focused on the personal reasons individuals give for getting tattooed, seemed to consider anyone with a tattoo as being part of some unified group whose only criteria for membership is having more than zero tattoos. The research wasn't considering factors that I felt are important to note when considering anybody's tattoos for study: things like the size, location, design, how often they got tattooed, where they went to get them, how they chose an artist, etc. Why were researchers making conclusions about a group where the only thing the members have in common was more than zero tattoos? I started thinking about myself in comparison to the two people mentioned earlier—a co- 3 worker of mine and the woman at the grocery store. Aside from all of us having at least one tattoo, I'd imagine that we were all more different than alike—not only in non-tattoo related things like job experience, martial and parental status, age, education, interests, etc—but also different in how we engaged in the tattoo process. My co-worker had spent time getting tattooed over decades with several different artists across several states. I had only ever been to one artist and had only been getting tattooed for a few years.